What's a good drive train for good mileage daily driver?

My current daily driver is a '97 F-250 crew cab with a 460 and E4OD.  It's getting really rusty, to the point I really need to do something about it soon.  I like the idea of trying to repair the rust (cut out/weld in new cab corners and above the windshield, new front fenders, new bed sides if not a whole new bed, etc).  But that's too big a project to do on my daily driver (I don't think I could get that done in a weekend!).  So it might be something for the future, but not right now, and that's not what this thread is about.

I need to get a "new" truck.  Maybe I fix up the current one after it's no longer a daily driver.  But getting the new truck is the first step.

I've been thinking about getting another ~'97 crew cab as was briefly discussed here, because I think I'm going to need a good people-mover since my sons are both married and at some point we might have grandkids to take to Dairy Queen.  But if I'm keeping this crew cab to fix the rust later, maybe I don't need to get another one right now.

I used to have a '95 F-150 SuperCab short box, and I really like a lot about that truck.  The SuperCab was great for two people and two dogs, it rode better than an F-250, it had a lower step-in height (well, at least until I lifted it) which my wife and my parents would like, and it got better mileage.

So now I'm spit-balling a SuperCab short bed as my next truck, and I'm thinking about what drive train I want.

A manual trans is a given.  I don't like automatics and I've lived with too many of them for too long.  Odds are slim that I'll find the truck I want with a manual, so I figure I'm looking at a project, which gives me more opportunity to change up more than just the trans.

So the question:  What drive train would be my best bet for decent mileage in a daily driver?

I'm not too concerned about power.  I think anything will do well enough for me.  I might occasionally tow between 5,000 - 10,000 lbs, but it'll be rare, it'll be short distances and I'll be OK with it being really slow.  I don't expect to be in mountains much and I don't need to be able to win street drags.  I do want decent driveability with an empty truck, but I don't need anything special there (see my screen name!).

The engines currently under consideration are the 300 six, the 302 V8 and the 351 V8.  With either of the V8s I'm thinking that getting it rebuilt with better heads and maybe a little bump in compression could help the mileage (if I don't use the power that would give me).  I'm not sure what's available for a better head on the 300, so that might stay pretty stock.  I'm thinking maybe long-tube headers, but staying with a stock '90s-vintage EFI intake system.

While I included the 351 there, it's not at the top of my list.  I figure anything a 351 can do in terms of mileage with decent driveability a 302 can do better.  So if it's a V8 it'll probably be a 302.

What do people think of the 302 vs the 300?  I feel like a stock 300 might get better mileage than a stock 302, but that a 302 that's built for it might beat out the 300 for mileage (if driven with a light foot) and might be a better choice for the few times more power is needed.

The trans will be a 5 speed manual with overdrive.  The Mazda trans would probably be the easiest to get and swap in.  A ZF5 would give a broader gear ratio spread (maybe more useful with a 302 than a 300) and would be better for the occasional towing.  Or an NV4500, Tremec, or whatever might also be considered.

Tires will be stock 235/75R-15 (~29").  I'm thinking the 300 as a lower revving motor might do well with something like 3.08 gears, while the higher revving 302 might need at least 3.54.  And from what some have said, the 302 might even do its best with 3.73s or even 4.10s.

Keep in mind that this is all spit-balling right now.  I might end up sticking with a crew cab (which will likely need a 351).  Or I might go a completely different direction entirely.

So what do people think?

Bob, I get 17-18 mpg in an 88 Supercab long bed 4x4 F250 with a C6 auto, 4.10 gears, 7.3 IDI and sort of knobbie tires. My secret weapon is the Gearvendors unit and I don't drive fast.

I imagine a 2wd 7.3IDI with manual trans, highway tires, and a gearvendors would do even better.

My 7.3 is totally stock, no power adders.

If you HAVE to have a gasser....and don't care about the sound....turbocharge a 300 six and and put some decent gears behind it and gearvendor unit. Low rpm torque coupled with the gearing for speeds you'll likely be driving it wins the fuel mileage race.

Keeping a 3.55-3.73 gear in the rear will help you tow, and the extra OD gear for splits and cruising helps keep the rpms in the best range.

The gearvendors unit makes ALL the difference for these older motors that don't have the modern power. Splitting gears keeps that engine at its max torque rpm longer, which equals better efficiency.

I don't want a diesel in this theoretical truck for several reasons.

Right now diesel fuel is about $4.75 here while gas is $3.10.  If I can get 15 mpg on gas (which I think isn't out of the question) I'd need to get 23 mpg on diesel to be equivalent.  That might be possible, but I don't think a diesel is likely to beat a gas engine in fuel cost.  The price penalty for diesel isn't always that high, but it's enough that I think in a lightly loaded half-ton truck diesel isn't going make sense.

Which brings me to #2, a half ton truck.  I'd rather not put the weight of a diesel V8 on a half ton suspension.

And living in Minnesota I don't love the idea of a diesel in the winter.  I had an '02 PowerStroke for about 5 years, and while it was OK, gassers start so much easier when it's cold.


But a Gear Vendors is certainly something to keep in mind.  I kind of feel like a 5 speed (especially a lighter one like the Mazda) will have tight enough spread for a 300, and I kind of feel like the 302 has a wide enough band that it would be less benefit.  But it does open up more possibilities, especially to have good mileage without hurting power for towing too much.


On the 300, why do you recommend a turbo?  Better mileage potential?  Better power without hurting mileage so much?  Or something else.  I'm just looking to understand.


(And I didn't say this before, but this will be a 4WD truck.  Minnesota winters again.)

Have you ever owned a 300?

Go watch the powerblock TV turbo 300 build series. 300 sixes respond amazingly to turbocharging with some tuning. Very flat torque curve.

I’ll throw my two cents in on the engines.

I don’t like the 302, 305, 307 etc. engines. Don’t like the RPM’s for power and the lack of torque.

My Bronco will get around 15 MPG on the highway. Never really checked around town, I’m assuming 12ish.
It has the 351, it’s a 92 so it doesn’t have the MAF system. And that’s with the E4OD. I think it has plenty of power and torque.

I’ve never owned a 300 six, but I would like too. I’ve heard them called slow or lazy, but I’m a torque fan.

Ray mentioned the 7.3 IDI. I had an 88 with the 7.3 and ZF tranny. Good engine, but I wouldn’t own one again for the reason you mentioned, starting in the winter. Started good when I had it plugged into an appliance timer and came on 2-3 hours before I left for work. You definitely have to keep on top of the glow plug system.

If I did own one again it would have a turbo on it. I live in a basin so no matter which direction you’re headed, you’re climbing and I’m already at 4200 feet of elevation. I’ve towed through the mountains, not fun.

I would like a 94-97 with a 351, roller lifters and MAF, which I think would help MPG.

If it doesn’t have to be a Ford, I’m really liking my 98 GMC.

Nothing Special wrote

(And I didn't say this before, but this will be a 4WD truck.  Minnesota winters again.)

Do you have a year range in mind?

If it's going to be an F150 4x4 with a 5spd trans, then it would be a 1988-1996 (assuming you're wanting the older style pickup, and not the 1997/1998-up "Jellybean" body style). Also, if it has to be a 5spd manual trans, then it will be a 300 or 302. I don't think the 351w ever came with a 5spd in an F150 did it? I know the M5OD did come in some light duty F250's, but I don't think the ZF5 ever came in an F150?.

If you did buy one with an auto and swapped in a 5spd manual, won't you run into ECM/EFI issues in doing this?

Unless, you're considering a Bullnose?

If you were looking at the 1988-1996 F150's, the 1992-up 302's will have roller cams in them, and the 1994-1996 302's will have the F4TZ cam (H.O./351w firing order). This was the best torque cam that Ford ever put in the 302. On top of that, the 302 got MAF EFI starting in 1995 with auto transmissions, and then in 1996 it was with both manuals and autos. So, having said all that, if you were going to buy an F150 with a 302 and a 5spd, then 1996 is the best year to get, with 1994-1995 being very close second placers imho.

If you look at F150's with auto OD transmissions, keep in mind that it will usually be the E4OD in them, but the 302 came with both the AODE and the E4OD. I believe the 300 and 351w only came with the E4OD. With the 302, you'll have to check the certification label to see what trans is in it (if you don't want to crawl under the truck and look at it).

I'm a big fan of all three engines 300/302/351w, and I have had all of them.

The 5spd manual trucks are usually mated up with 3.55 geared 8.8 rear diffs, although the M5OD 5spd was mated up with a 3.08 geared 8.8 occasionally, but I have only seen that combo behind a 300 inline six.

So, for MPG purposes, I'd want a 5spd with a tall rearend like a 3.08, but I would only want that combo with a 300 six as the low end torque would make it nice to drive. I don't think you'll find a 302 with a 5spd and 3.08 gears, and having had that combo myself I wouldn't really recommend it. It was good for MPG, but bad for everything else.

My 2 cents worth;).

The 4.9L/300 engine can return quite good gas mileage figures.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1325963-gas-mileage-recipe-4-9l-300-a.html

I'd vote for a 300 six and five speed if you want best fuel mileage and towing combination. Maybe add a 3.55-3.73 gear plus a gearvendors OD. A 3.08 and stock 300 six might be a little lame in the towing department. A gearvendors really opens up your diff gear options and let's you tow better.

I choose diesel because I'm a paranoid prepper, and it's by far the most emp proof, SHTF proof setup. I can distill diesel from trash plastics, mechanical injection, the list goes on. But this ain't a prepper thread.

Lots of good information and questions here.  Thanks!  Trying to catch most of the questions...

It does have to be a Ford, and a '80 - '96/97 at that.  To me a truck is like a pair of boots or a pair of jeans.  How it works is important.  So is how it looks.  But maybe most important is how it fits.  I've had an '85, a '95 and a '97 and have loved all three.  I've hated my '02 and '08 Ford pickups.  There might be another truck that I wouldn't regret owning, but the only thing I'm sure of is the '80 - '96/97 Fords, so that's what this will be.

To narrow down the years even more, it's almost certainly going to be a '92 - '96.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so sorry to those of you who feel differently from me on this, but I really don't like the split rear window of the '80 - '91 SuperCabs.  I do like the look of the '80 - '86 front clip the best, but I don't mind the '92 - '96 front, and it's a little more aerodynamic which doesn't hurt the goal.

To Rembrandt's question on swapping, I'm thinking I'll get two trucks.  A solid '92 - '96 F-150 SuperCab short box for the truck and whatever truck I can find with any manual trans and the right engine and ECM.  If I want a different trans than it comes with I can stick one on that engine without much issue.  This truck will be new enough to have EFI, and hopefully a roller cam.  That will also give me the pedals etc I'd need for the swap.  

I have not owned a 300.  I know that engine has an almost rabidly faithful group of supporters, and that many people can't all be wrong, so it's definitely in consideration, but I don't know anything about it from personal experience.

I've had a few 302s in my Bronco.  I loved the original one.  I could leave the manual trans in high gear (1:1) once I got above about 15 mph.  It had no trouble pulling that (with 33" tires and 4.10 gears).  I don't love the current 302 as a truck engine (different cam I'm sure), but it isn't that bad either.  I do need to downshift to pull away from a corner, but it will putt along in overdrive at 30 mph if I don't need to accelerate hard.  I could be happy with a 302 in this theoretical truck.  It also has a pretty strong following as a good economical choice for a LIGHT truck.  And on paper it's better than a 300, with more torque everywhere on the torque curve (but that's on paper, I know the 300 fans would say that's not the case in the real world).

I've had a couple of 351s and I have loved them.  I know I'd prefer its lower rpm torque to the 302.  But I don't think I really need the extra cubes, and if the 302 might get another mpg than a 351 I think it would be a better choice.

I'm getting close to considering diesel because of the laws going into place mandating electric vehicles.  I wouldn't be surprised if gas starts getting a lot harder to come by.  But I think diesel will be needed for trucks for a long time to come.

But I ain't quite there yet, and this isn't that kind of prepper thread either!

(I do think diesel is a great option for a lot of people in a lot of cases.  I might end up putting one in my crew cab at some point.  But not for this thought exercise.)

Diesel will long outlive gasoline. For sure.

I'm looking for an air starter for my 7.3 to harden against EMP or CME.

One of my fellow "lab rats" (what we called ourselves in the NNS laboratory) had two Ford pickups, both of which he pretty well inherited. One was a 1986 F150, 300 six and 4 speed, the other a 1994 F150, 302 and 4R70. He asked me which I thought would be better to use running from Newport News VA to his retirement home he was building in Charlotte County West of Richmond. I said the 1994 as it had an OD trans and the 1986, even running perfectly still was a feedback carb system.

First couple trips he wasn't real happy, 10 mpg o the 1994. I suggested he pull a couple of plugs and see what they looked like, to his surprise they were AC platinum plugs. Having gone through platinum plugs on older Fords, I suggested he get a set of Motorcraft plugs. He wasn't sure but agreed to use them. He called me somewhere beyond Richmond and started singing "I'm a believer". Truck hadn't even burned 1/2 tank running loaded on the interstate.

Point is, 300 is an workhorse, like a Clydesdale, 302 is more of a race horse and is happy cruising. Now if both had been 1994 or 1986, the difference would not have been as great.

I have two examples which I drive regularly. one is the 300 with a c6 and a 3.08 rear gear and 32'tall tires. adding the 32" tall tires makes it more equivalent to having a 2.79. this one does best around town and occasionally I can get 15 mpg. the general expected mpg is 13-13.5 especially if I sit on the highway the absence of od really shows up with a single barrel carb cruising at 2750 rpm.
the other is a 5.0 efi in a 93 flareside with an aod and a 3.73 with stock size tires. it is my best mpg of all so far getting 16 plus in town and it got 19 hwy back in September going to Maine and back. and that was holding 75-8 for most of 2k miles. that is by trying my best to keep it at 2k or below.

A lot of my miles will be driving to and from work.  A little over a half mile on suburban streets at each end with about 7  miles of suburban freeway in between.

It also won't be uncommon to do about 80 miles of freeway and/or rural 2-lane highway, going to the cabin or going hunting.

It might occasionally have to pull my folks ~5000 lb travel trailer over about 10 miles of rural 2-lane.  And if/when I start working on the crew cab it might have to move it around.  But not much towing, and as I said, it doesn't need to do it particularly well.

So I don't really need a workhorse.  The cruiser might be a better fit.

I find myself leaning toward a 302 roller cam, maybe with something like GT40 (if I'm remembering that correctly) heads.

In an ideal world I think I'd like something like a ZF5 or NV4500 to get a wider ratio spread (low for towing and high for cruising).  And maybe 3.73 or 4.10 gears with a Gear Vendor, or possibly a Ranger overdrive to further extend the range and fill in the wider gaps for when that's desirable.

I daily a 300 (4x2 AOD, 3.08, see my signature)... here's my notes on how it goes:

-Driving around town isn't too terrible performance wise, other than really steep windy hills and the occasion where one has to slow down 15-20mph and gets "stuck" in 2nd gear at 1100RPM for a bit.

-Highway driving isn't too bad either... but if you use cruise and there's a lot of hills/wind (especially over 65mph) you will be downshifting to 3rd a lot. Otherwise, on interstates, if you don't use cruise and  speed up in valleys and slow down on peaks it'll do OK... if traffic allows (for me, it's often it's a choice between the 75-80mph hammer lane or the 60mph mind numbing turtle lane) and if your foot/leg/frontal lobe doesn't get sore!

-MPG can be good or can be awful. Rural 55-65mph driving I've gotten as high as 17mpg. Flat low wind 70-75mph freeway driving I've also gotten 16-17 on a couple occasions. But hills/wind on interstates kills it to 14-12mpg... and commuting to work across a small town? 12-10mpg, winter being the worst. I don't have a pure city number but it's probably around 10 right now... choke and fast idle likely to blame.

-Towing: Not super great, but what one would expect from a 1980's stock half ton. OD and cruise do not mix, even on an empty trailer (to be fair, the trailer has a 1700lb dry weight). Decent bit of squat too... but then again, I don't have the towing package (or even aftermarket airbags), so I'm not supposed to tow. MPG suffers a bit, but that's what one would expect. If looking to tow, I'd suggest 3.55's. Heck, I'm tempted to regear to 3.55 just as a drivability improvement (as it was a stock option, and was standard on high-alititude).

I've not been able to keep up as I'm on vacation and just spent two days at Disney World.  (Or, was that two weeks?  Maybe I was too weak?  )

Cory kind of outlined the problem - an F150 didn't get the ZF5 and a 351W didn't get the M5OD.  So if you want a manual in an F150 then it is either the 300 or 302.  I think I could live with either, but I'd want the right gearing - the 300 can handle tall gearing better than the 302 can.  And with 3.55 gears, an M5OD, and 31" tires you'd be turning 2000 @ 65 MPH.  I think a 300 would be fine with that, but I'm not sure a 302 would?  (The "?" was meant to say "I really don't know.")

Then there's the 1st gear to get things rolling.  The M5 has a 3.9 gear first gear, so if you were to go to a higher rear end it might be a pain getting things rolling when towing, especially w/a 302.

Given all of that I think I'd lean to a 300 with 3.55 gears.

Gary, I hope you're enjoying your vacation!  Lesley and I will be at Walt Disney World again soon as well!

(I know this sounds like I have my mind made up on the 302.  I really don't, and I still want more discussion on this if people are willing.  But most of the recommendations are coming for the 300, so I'm more taking the other side here to keep the discussion going.)

Keeping in mind that this will be a "project vehicle" (if it ever actually comes to be), there's no problem with an F-150 with a 302 and a ZF5, or a 351 and a Mazda trans, or whatever engine/trans combination I decide on with whatever gears I want.

My concern with the 300 is that I'm afraid the mileage will fall off pretty badly if it's over-taxed, and I'm afraid that it would be overtaxed pretty easily.  Now maybe some low axle gears would prevent that, at the expense of empty mileage.  But maybe a Gear Vendors would address that.  Or maybe a turbo would let it pull a little taller gears.

Also I'm thinking a 300 (at least without a turbo) has a relatively narrow torque curve.  It does well down low, but sort of falls on its face as it winds out.  So the narrower splits of the Mazda trans might be a better fit for it.  (A ZF5 with Gear Vendors would have narrower splits as well, but if a lot of shifting is needed it might be nicer having a lighter-shifting trans.)

The 302 is known as a revver, but on paper at least it has more torque everywhere on its torque curve than a 300 does.  Again, I know that's on paper, that lots of people love the 300 as a truck motor, no one ever claims the 302 is a great truck motor and Ford never put the 302 into anything heavier than a standard 3/4 ton while the 300 went into medium-duty trucks.  Still, if it has it on paper it can't be all that terrible.  And I do have some experience with the 302 in my Bronco, which I wouldn't call a great truck engine, but it isn't terrible.

As a revver the 302 gets into the "don't fear the gear" zone.  I hear the mileage doesn't really fall off as you go up to even 4.10 gears.  I have 4.10s and 33" tires on my Bronco with an NV3550 (similar to the Mazda 5 speed).  It has more than enough low-end torque to get rolling with about a 3000 lb trailer (the heaviest I've ever towed with it).  And I'm told I'd get similar if not better mileage if I went to 4.56 gears (pushing a lifted brick through the air with 33" tires).

I think the 302 also has a wider torque band than the 300.  It certainly goes higher, and while it doesn't have the reputation for low end that the 300 has, it doesn't completely fall off there either.  So a 302 should be able to pull wider gear spreads, which is why I'm thinking a ZF5 might be a good choice there.  A significantly lower first gear than the Mazda trans to get things going, but still a good (better?) overdrive ratio for cruising.

We did enjoy it, but so did waaaaay too many others.  But the kids and grandkids really liked it.

Ok, so it is a project truck and you can change anything.  That being the case, why not a 3.5L Ecoboost?  It'll do everything you want to do in grand style.  We have Blue on this trip as we took a roll-top desk, bicycle, and three totes/boxes of dishes, yearbooks, and keepsakes - plus our own luggage.  And the MPG is running about 18 in spite of yesterday cruising at 80 - 85.  Plus, at one point we ran 50 MPH on flat ground for a long way and I saw 22 MPG average.

As for towing, I'd much rather tow with it in the F150 than the 460 in the F250.  It has all the torque needed and it'll give it to you at basically any RPM - just ask.

But on to your comments.  First, I agree about the ZF5 not being fun to shift.  I like my ZF5, but you cannot hurry it.  So the M5OD might be a better choice.

But I don't know that I can agree that the 302 has a "wider" torque range.  In fact, I don't know what that really is as both engines put out some torque in the same range - although you might not get the 300 to the same RPM as the 302.  Instead we ought to compare the curves and zero in on the range that will be used.  But I've not found charts for both engines, although I did find these #'s for the 302:

1500 rpm = 275#
2000 rpm = 302#
2500 rpm = 315#
3000 rpm = 327#
3500 rpm = 350#
4000 rpm = 362#
4500 rpm = 379#
5000 rpm = 356#
5500 rpm = 348#
6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)

I'm not going to go with an EcoBoost.  That would be a more complicated swap than I'm up for.  I'm going to stick with parts that came out of this vintage truck as they will go in easier.  (I have thought about a Chevy LS swap.  A little more complicated than '90s Ford parts, but with a lot of aftermarket support.  But I think I don't really want to go there either.)

As to torque curves I found where a guy posted the dyno numbers off his 300.  Not apples to apples as Gary's 302 numbers were a different source/method.  But to compare:

                      300            302
1500 rpm                      275 lb-ft
1800 rpm     224 lb-ft
2000 rpm     228 lb-ft     302 lb-ft
2200 rpm     238 lb-ft
2500 rpm     231 lb-ft     315 lb-ft
2700 rpm     227 lb-ft
3000 rpm     222 lb-ft     350 lb-ft
3400 rpm     200 lb-ft
3500 rpm     195 lb-ft
4000 rpm                      362 lb-ft
4500 rpm                      379 lb-ft
5000 rpm                      356 lb-ft
5500 rpm                      348 lb-ft
6000 rpm                      315 lb-ft

Taking those numbers at face value, the 302 definitely has a wider torque curve, and has more torque than the 302 everywhere on the curve (which is what I've heard before).

But I do have to question your numbers on the 302.  315 lb-ft at 6000 rpm is 360 hp, which seems incredible (as in not being credible) for a stockish 302.